Pencil-Whipped Annuals

We hire some newbs at the shop from time to time, currently have two of them. Both of them are adequate if carefully supervised, but the differences in attitude are both wide and deep. One kid freely admits that the school he attended (and paid $30k that he's now working to pay off) "taught to the test" and he's seeing most of the real shop work for the first time. The other one attended the same school and thinks he knows a lot more than he does. Unfortunately, he has a very low percentage of being right.

We're training and supervising as hard as we can, but only time will tell if they make it. Insofar as trouble-shooting is concerned, I wouldn't trust either of them to track a wounded elephant through fresh snow. Any airplane owner who trusts the opinion of a mechanic he doesn't know and/or have an absolutely bullet-proof set of referrals in hand is an idiot.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Should we start a thread so we mechanics can rant on owners?
Click to expand...

Call it "Stoopid owner tricks".

Having been around Grumman owners for a while I recall this guy who refused to have his nose gear shimmy fixed right. He was adamant that he could land or take off with minimal shimmy by either keeping the weight off the nose, or pressing hard on the brakes and keeping extra weight on the nose. This went on for quite a while, and I watched a few landings where the plane shook pretty good as it passed through the shimmy speed. Finally the swivel pin broke, the prop tips touched the runway, he skidded to a stop on the stump, and the departed nose wheel bounced up and put a nice thump in the belly. The cost of repair went up 'significantly'. :yes:
 
Last edited:
Frank said:
I sincerely doubt you could keep up with most of my classmates who earned their mechanic's certificates.
Click to expand...

Since I have never been trained to be a mechanic of any sort, I hope that I wouldn't be able to keep up with most of your classmates. If I could, then I would be very afraid of the planes they are responsible for fixing.
 
JB1842 said:
Since I have never been trained to be a mechanic of any sort, I hope that I wouldn't be able to keep up with most of your classmates. If I could, then I would be very afraid of the planes they are responsible for fixing.
Click to expand...
I did not limit that comment to fixing aircraft.
 
JB1842 said:
Congratualtions, you are one of the smartest and witty individuals on the internet.
Click to expand...

This would have really been witty and smart, if only you had spelled congratulations correctly. :D

I would have given you one of those 'oh-snap!' comments. :rofl:
 
docmirror said:
This would have really been witty and smart, if only you had spelled congratulations correctly. :D

I would have given you one of those 'oh-snap!' comments. :rofl:
Click to expand...

And how did you know that wasn't on purpose? JK, my fat fingers foiled me again!
 
I have had 5 IA's look at and annual my plane in the last six annuals.


wsuffa said:
A couple of thoughts on my annual process:

1) I use a different shop for annuals than I do for routine maintenance.
2) Even the best mechanic at annual can miss something. I think the worst I've encountered was a plastic oil drain tray left in the engine compartment (I caught it on pre-flight), and a shop that shorted the landing light wires. My rule now is that I inspect inside the cowl before it gets closed after annual.
3) Every few years I take mine to someone that "specializes" in the make/model. For a while, that was the factory (now closed), then to someone that maintained 4 other similar planes. This year it's a shop that does a lot of STC and other work on similar airframes (and this year it's costing a bunch of $$$ because a prior mechanic that opened the tanks used the wrong sealant... and that happened before I bought the plane).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
BTW-BART-MC I was just in your side of town. I got some photos of Tibee Light house yesterday before driving home. Lovely area. If I had realized, I would have called you for a coffee or fish and chips.

bartmc said:
My first plane (PA28-150), was gone over pretty good. 1st annual, $5,000 bucks.
1. All new hoses, almost none had dates, some were life limited per AD. The logbooks didn't make me or my IA feel good, $1000.
2. 500 hr AD on the impulse coupler came due. OOOPS it was the rivet type and they're 100hr, it was 5 times over due. OOOPPPS it had the problem, loose rivet. Mags need overhauled too $1000.00

You're getting new eyes on the plane, I recommend taking it every other year or so to a new mechanic for annual. Not knocking A&Ps some just get tunnel vision on planes they see month after month and year after year.
Click to expand...
 
JB1842 said:
Agree.
Click to expand...

I think many of us first time plane owners go through a wrenching learning process as we select and search for our first airplane which includes learning about maintenance and possible costs.

While great you won your airplane, it also caused you to truncate that aircraft ownership maintenance learning.

Not too serious as you can read up on Savvy Aviator seminars and get yourself up to speed.

When your annual comes, plan to take a week off work and be there every minute.

The more you learn about maintenance in your aircraft the more you might spend but it will be better spent on those issues that effect real safety and reliability of your plane.

Subscribe to TAP paper edition this is the bible of parts sourcing in aviation.
 
Silvaire said:
Which is my point exactly. You don't have anything substantive to make the accusation and even then it's a shotgun blast aimed in the direction of IA's in general based on speculative assumptions.

You want advice and feedback? I'm giving it to you.
Click to expand...

Actually, I have owned two airplanes and done 18 annuals and have been an aviator for 12+ years. I have also taken some A&P classes and other aviation maintenance courses and I can tell you that since the brakes must specifically be checked for every annual, any annual that does not do this can and is called a pencil whipped annual. It is not likely that those brakes were checked on annual and then wear through the metal in 50 hrs.

So lets not bang too hard on the new owner. He is no doubt repeating what another mechanic has already told him and from all information it seems to be accurate.
 
flyingron said:
There is no such official publication as the FAR/AIM and if you have such a book it almost certainly omits Part 43 which details what an annual inspection is. All you need learn (and apparently all you DID learn) was that you need an annual once a year. Annuals are not MAINTENANCE, they are inspections.
Click to expand...

Fact of the matter is that most maintenance on most GA aircraft is performed at annual so this is a technical distinction but adds little to the overall topic at hand.
 
Tom-D said:
If this is what you know, your CFI needs his A$$ kicked.

Apparently not….. Were you a customer of mine I would expect you to know FAR 91.4XXX cold, and FAR 43 as well.
Click to expand...

Being told and learning are two different things. Most of us learn about our aircraft over many months, this guy had to take it in with a fire hose in a few hours it sounds like. No surprise if he could not internalize everything that the CFI/A&P said, assuming that he did tell him all that he needed to know to begin with. It takes time to get it all in.
 
docmirror said:
Hard to get the harshness in this thread. Guy comes on and whines about cost, and mx, and stuff just like a thousand other guys and he gets the firey shaft with no lube.

Bummer, Having been there, I feel the pain.
Click to expand...

And we wonder why new people do not join us in aviation or forums?
 
docmirror said:
I was talking about my tale of woe. I bought the plane and got it home. It was annualled when I picked it up. I flew mine for a few hours, and found the alt bracket busted and the bolt wobbling around. That started us down the road you are on now.
Click to expand...

I bought my Comanche with fresh annual. It was not the sellers IA but a third party IA. I got my Comanche directly from annual inspection and $13k of maintenance. I had Webco the Comanche specialist do an additional walk around and had 4 hrs in it when the landing gear failed, and the emergency release landing gear failed in flight.

We managed to get it loose and land safely.

Guess the guys who did the annual who claim to have done Comanche annuals in the past did not know how much play should be allowed in the landing gear transmission, over tightening the LG and some how a failing limit switch got passed. Apparently Webco did not take too close of look either.
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of good AI's and A&Ps out there. However YOU and We are absolutely responsible for our own safety and maintenance. This requires us to learn more about our airplanes than we know about our cars, motor cycles, boats or homes. It is required to fly safely. It is also required to control maintenance costs.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
BTW-BART-MC I was just in your side of town. I got some photos of Tibee Light house yesterday before driving home. Lovely area. If I had realized, I would have called you for a coffee or fish and chips.
Click to expand...

I was out and about, flying around the area, then went to the beach... Tough job but someone has to do it.
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
There are plenty of good AI's and A&Ps out there. However YOU and We are absolutely responsible for our own safety and maintenance. This requires us to learn more about our airplanes than we know about our cars, motor cycles, boats or homes. It is required to fly safely. It is also required to control maintenance costs.
Click to expand...

Knowing that, why can't we get an owner maintained aircraft category?

still must have an annual and meets its type certificate requirements each year.

who really cares who bends the wrench on it?
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I think many of us first time plane owners go through a wrenching learning process as we select and search for our first airplane which includes learning about maintenance and possible costs.

While great you won your airplane, it also caused you to truncate that aircraft ownership maintenance learning.

Not too serious as you can read up on Savvy Aviator seminars and get yourself up to speed.

When your annual comes, plan to take a week off work and be there every minute.

The more you learn about maintenance in your aircraft the more you might spend but it will be better spent on those issues that effect real safety and reliability of your plane.

Subscribe to TAP paper edition this is the bible of parts sourcing in aviation.
Click to expand...

It is a learning process, but it's something I want to learn. I've looked into taking A&P classes at the community college, I still have some eligibility left in my GI Bill, but I can't swing them with my schedule. I've done the Savvy Aviator webinars and sat in some of the forums at Oshkosh.
 
Tom-D said:
Knowing that, why can't we get an owner maintained aircraft category?

still must have an annual and meets its type certificate requirements each year.

who really cares who bends the wrench on it?
Click to expand...

This place was advertising those 16 hour and 120 hour classes for E-LSA maintenance at Oshkosh this year. http://www.rainbowaviation.com/
Why couldn't something like this be established for certified aircraft owners?
 
Tom-D said:
Knowing that, why can't we get an owner maintained aircraft category?

still must have an annual and meets its type certificate requirements each year.

who really cares who bends the wrench on it?
Click to expand...

I support that.

an airport manager told me the other day that he suspects that over half the small GA are self maintained anyway to some degree or another, maybe half of that is out of annual but still flown and about the same number of pilots are out of annual as well (So to speak).
 
Tony_Scarpelli said:
I support that.

an airport manager told me the other day that he suspects that over half the small GA are self maintained anyway to some degree or another, maybe half of that is out of annual but still flown and about the same number of pilots are out of annual as well (So to speak).
Click to expand...

Most all of my customers maintain their own aircraft. I see them when they need help, or advice. and of course at annual time.
 
Tom-D said:
Knowing that, why can't we get an owner maintained aircraft category?
Click to expand...

We do... it's called Experimental, Amateur-Built.

And it's one of the prime reasons why used Van's RVs (and Glasairs and Lancairs) are fetching a healthy price on the used plane market nowadays, while the market for used factory spamcans is down the toilet.

It's one of the biggest reasons why I switched.... that and being able to cruise 195-200 MPH on the same fuel burn my old Cherokee used just to go 120-125 mph;)

And it's about 100 times more fun to fly too :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Knowing that, why can't we get an owner maintained aircraft category?

still must have an annual and meets its type certificate requirements each year.

who really cares who bends the wrench on it?
Click to expand...

What I would like to see happen would be considered a buddy inspection system. An owner could get some type of inspection certification for a type or group of aircraft like all Cessna fixed wing from 120-182. At that point, he/she could take part in an inspection of another person's plane and would require two signatures to get it to pass. Of course this could lead to some undesirable results too, but I always want to have a second set of eyes on a plane in case the owner's set become blind to a potential problem.
 
Neal Howard said:
We do... it's called Experimental, Amateur-Built.

And it's one of the prime reasons why used Van's RVs (and Glasairs and Lancairs) are fetching a healthy price on the used plane market nowadays, while the market for used factory spamcans is down the toilet.

It's one of the biggest reasons why I switched.... that and being able to cruise 195-200 MPH on the same fuel burn my old Cherokee used just to go 120-125 mph;)

And it's about 100 times more fun to fly too :thumbsup:
Click to expand...

Let's see you go buy a Cessna 210 type experimental today for what you can a real 210.
 
docmirror said:
What I would like to see happen would be considered a buddy inspection system. An owner could get some type of inspection certification for a type or group of aircraft like all Cessna fixed wing from 120-182. At that point, he/she could take part in an inspection of another person's plane and would require two signatures to get it to pass. Of course this could lead to some undesirable results too, but I always want to have a second set of eyes on a plane in case the owner's set become blind to a potential problem.
Click to expand...

That's what working under the supervision does in todays FARs

I can replace components in aircraft with out a second pair of eyes, why shouldn't the owner? they have more to risk than I do.

Want a second pair of eyes ? call your buddy, but why should they sign? or would you like them in the liability chain too.
 
Tom-D said:
That's what working under the supervision does in todays FARs

I can replace components in aircraft with out a second pair of eyes, why shouldn't the owner? they have more to risk than I do.

Want a second pair of eyes ? call your buddy, but why should they sign? or would you like them in the liability chain too.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the way I do it now, but I'd like to see the process extended to the owner/op category. The reason for the two pair of signatures is someone to countersign that work done, or inspections accomplished were actually done and not 'pencil whipped'. As for liability chain, that's only one of the turds in the punchbowl of the idea, and there's others as well.

But, it's a step in the right direction. There are still a lot of owners who have no business inside the guts of an airplane. Then, there's the complexities of AD compliance which becomes more disastrous each year. The Bonanza spar web inspection remediation is the one that comes to mind for me. I've read it, and read the Bonanza org position on it, and I still don't fully understand the limits, the subjectiveness of the process and some of the remediation. This is where it has to be escalated to an A&P, cause most owners would be out of their element with something so critical.
 
Tom-D said:
Knowing that, why can't we get an owner maintained aircraft category?

still must have an annual and meets its type certificate requirements each year.

who really cares who bends the wrench on it?
Click to expand...

+1 :yes:
 
Neal Howard said:
Let's see your non-AP owner legally do any major mods or repairs to that 210 just because he feels like it ;)
Click to expand...

that's the whole point of my owner maintained category.

When you buy an EXP/AB complex aircraft do you feel qualified to do major modifications with out getting a new airworthiness certificate? and doing the paper work to re-certify the aircraft under the rules.
 
I'm about 7 pages late with this, but here goes nuttin';
As to the belly drain in a C150, there is a tee in the fuel line, where it runs from the valve to the gasculator. It's usually capped, but there can be a drain valve installed in lieu of the cap.
Fuel contamination in a C150 usually comes in the form of water, just look at the way the fuel filler necks are made. Cessna, in their infinite wisdom, put the fuel filler in a well, with the top of the neck below the top of the well, and no drain hole in the well. :rolleyes: All you need now is a weak gasket, and a heavy rain.
Another thing comes in here:http://www.sumpthis.com/cessna150andcessna152tanktest/cessna150tanktestimages800x600.htm

This has been proven to me, in my very own C150J. Also probably the reason that newer Cessnas have so many sump drains per tank.
We had a need to de-fuel the airplane, and after getting all the fuel out, with only a couple of ounces of water, I raised one wing, while my partner sat on the tail, and out came about 3 quarts of pure water from the left tank. Same thing on the right side. :hairraise:
Then I put new O ring in the fuel valve.
 
Tom-D said:
that's the whole point of my owner maintained category.

When you buy an EXP/AB complex aircraft do you feel qualified to do major modifications with out getting a new airworthiness certificate? and doing the paper work to re-certify the aircraft under the rules.
Click to expand...

I recently had to replace the propeller on my RV-6 due to finding a crack in my wooden prop. I opted for a Sensenich ground adjustable carbon fiber composite prop as the replacement... clearly a major modification. I certainly felt 100% qualified to do the replacement myself, and was able to put the plane back into "phase 1" flight testing, fly off the required minimum hours, update the weight and balance paperwork, and sign off the logbook to put the plane back into "phase 2" (regular normal ops) myself, all without the involvement of the FAA as per my operating limitation document... as the owner of my E-AB airplane. All this is 100% impossible to do with a factory spamcan unless you're an AP/IA and using PMA'd/STC'd parts. Everything I did to my plane was 100% legal and by the book. This is the beauty of owning an E-AB aircraft and well worth the extra cost of buying or building one for yourself. If you build it yourself and get the repairman's certificate for it, you get the added bonus of being able to perform your own annual condition inspections too.

I'm all for the prospect of a new kind of "experimental-owner maintained" AW cert for certain simple vintage factory spamcans (e.g. Cessnas, Pipers, Beech, etc) similar to Canada's "owner maintained" category of the same. I think this will help revitalize GA owning and flying of such aircraft.
 
Last edited:
Neal Howard said:
I recently had to replace the propeller on my RV-6 due to finding a crack in my wooden prop. I opted for a Sensenich ground adjustable carbon fiber composite prop as the replacement... clearly a major modification. I certainly felt 100% qualified to do the replacement myself, and was able to put the plane back into "phase 1" flight testing, fly off the required minimum hours, update the weight and balance paperwork, and sign off the logbook to put the plane back into "phase 2" (regular normal ops) myself, all without the involvement of the FAA as per my operating limitation document... as the owner of my E-AB airplane. All this is 100% impossible to do with a factory spamcan unless you're an AP/IA and using PMA'd/STC'd parts. Everything I did to my plane was 100% legal and by the book. This is the beauty of owning an E-AB aircraft and well worth the extra cost of buying or building one for yourself. If you build it yourself and get the repairman's certificate for it, you get the added bonus of being able to perform your own annual condition inspections too.

I'm all for the prospect of a new kind of "experimental-owner maintained" AW cert for certain simple vintage factory spamcans (e.g. Cessnas, Pipers, Beech, etc) similar to Canada's "owner maintained" category of the same. I think this will help revitalize GA owning and flying of such aircraft.
Click to expand...

EXP is not what we want. Simply remove the requirement in part 91 rules that require the aircraft to be maintained by persons that have an A&P.

Simply add the "owner" to 43.3
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see some training involved, at least before allowing owners to inspect. This is even the case with EAB as the builder is the only non A&P who can do a condition inspection.

Wouldn't take much to get an owner trained on a particular airframe however, especially the simple singles that make up a large portion of the private fleet.
 
Skylane81E said:
I'd like to see some training involved, at least before allowing owners to inspect. This is even the case with EAB as the builder is the only non A&P who can do a condition inspection.

Wouldn't take much to get an owner trained on a particular airframe however, especially the simple singles that make up a large portion of the private fleet.
Click to expand...
We already have preventive maintenance, no training involved. which is easier changing the alternator or changing a tire?
 
Tom-D said:
We already have preventive maintenance, no training involved. which is easier changing the alternator or changing a tire?
Click to expand...

For the farm kids the original regs were written for, the tire and alternator were about equal.

Nowadays, people take their heads off with spilt rims, and most folks haven't changed an alternator in ten years or more.

Times changed, the regs didn't.
 
Neal Howard said:
I recently had to replace the propeller on my RV-6 due to finding a crack in my wooden prop. I opted for a Sensenich ground adjustable carbon fiber composite prop as the replacement... clearly a major modification. I certainly felt 100% qualified to do the replacement myself, and was able to put the plane back into "phase 1" flight testing, fly off the required minimum hours, update the weight and balance paperwork, and sign off the logbook to put the plane back into "phase 2" (regular normal ops) myself, all without the involvement of the FAA as per my operating limitation document... as the owner of my E-AB airplane. All this is 100% impossible to do with a factory spamcan unless you're an AP/IA and using PMA'd/STC'd parts. Everything I did to my plane was 100% legal and by the book. This is the beauty of owning an E-AB aircraft and well worth the extra cost of buying or building one for yourself. If you build it yourself and get the repairman's certificate for it, you get the added bonus of being able to perform your own annual condition inspections too.

I'm all for the prospect of a new kind of "experimental-owner maintained" AW cert for certain simple vintage factory spamcans (e.g. Cessnas, Pipers, Beech, etc) similar to Canada's "owner maintained" category of the same. I think this will help revitalize GA owning and flying of such aircraft.
Click to expand...
Would you have felt as confident installing a metal prop that had not been used or approved elsewhere in a certficated installation? Wood and carbon fiber props tend to damp out vibrations. Metal props can have harmonic issues. I don't want to put obstacles in anyone's path, but I also would like to avoid making it easy to fall into a trap. I do not have a clear vision as to the best way to balance these issues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top